Well then by all means, don’t let the facts get in your way.
You clearly don’t understand the mental view of psychopaths then. In your case it would just be others view of him, but he himself is not diminished in any way. They are fine with it.
Buddhism itself defines good and bad for the purposes of Buddhism. It doesn’t so far as I can tell expect that unreformed psychopaths are going to find it an attractive or useful philosophy. Buddhism is ultimately about self-improvement. It doesn’t offer a comprehensive program for reforming everyone around you.
Anyway, how is any of that relevant to your claim of nihilism?
Doesn’t really address the moral question (no buddhist does).
Also too much woo with regards to “consciousness and transformation”. I think they also automatically assume that one would lead to another (ie, the dissolving of the self would make you a better person). Truth is that it doesn’t. Me being aware of others does not mean I care about them. Not to mention our moral code is based on there being “other people”. If everything is just one “ocean” then there goes empathy, love, compassion. Sure you have peace, but that might not be good for humans. Suffering motivates us to take action. It seems to me that the more this practice goes on the more trouble humans are in.
Ultimately it isn’t Buddhism but just the watered down bits. The links in my first post get at what it really is.
Because of things being inherently empty and nihilism says there is no inherent meaning in life. Buddhism does a good job of making present existence seem undesirable so as to motivate one to not be reborn into it. If you take out reincarnation or karma then you don’t have buddhism, and those who say otherwise are likely lying.
The irony of saying that Buddhism is “self-improvement” is that the state they seek (nonduality) involves there being no such thing as better or worse. SO they are a bit of a hypocrite in preaching improvement (which is another subjective word, one could argue that following the philosophy would lead to the end of humans).
Why are you ignoring my plain English? He is diminished in concrete ways, as I said, despite his feelings and despite the concept of karma. Buddhism doesn’t hold itself as a moral code, despite it being looked at that way by many. It’s more like a way to swim in a current even if some of its rules line up with some moral codes.
He is not diminished in concrete ways, I’m sorry. As I have said, you don’t get the mind of a psychopath. Perhaps from your perspective you might think so, but not to them. That’s really all that matters. Especially if one goes down in infamy then they are really not diminished. It’s a matter of perspective and what matters is their own.
Sorry, but Buddhism is wrong on that one. Also their version of “swimming in a current” can be callous without morality to guide it, and the philosophy sort of works against any solid version of good or bad. If people seriously followed it then the results would likely not bode well for humans since (according to the link) we would be trading away what helped us survive.
It’s fine if Buddhism doesn’t appeal to you but you really shpuld stop declaring you’ve spotted all these inconsistencies and lack of introspection. You are clearly working with superficial knowledge and close to no understanding.
People keep saying that but have nothing to show for it.
It’s easy to be opinionated, being informed takes a little more effort. At times being only opinionated can announce how uninformed one is.
My apologies if this is a side-track or hi-jack, but I don’t follow the postings of **MachinaForce **closely enough to have discerned a pattern. Is this guy’s habit that he tends to post critical reviews of various religions, that he likes to study and discuss the existentialist philosophies, or that he’s repeatedly trying to say, “My faith is better than [whatever alternative] because…”
Or is there some other kind of game he plays around here?
Because I’m gleaning from various responses that some of you have tried to correct this guy’s interpretations in previous threads (which I have not read) and some of you are rather tired of the seeming futility of trying. If **MachinaForce **is really trying to discuss and understand then it’s worth trying to help him comprehend; if he’s just Baiting the Believers and playing at being dumb, then there’s really no sense in even pretending to try to educate him.
I ask only because I’d rather not waste the (virtual) ink on a response if his game is just to be antagonistic. Convincing True Believers that their devotion is undeserved is a fools errand and, while critics are quick to point out flaws and inconsistencies, they typically lack the ability to suggest compensatory ideas or corrections, much less alternative approaches. On the other hand, if he’s really trying to learn and just happens to be way off-base, a response or two might be worthwhile.
–G!
As I understand it, the central message of Buddhism is “every man for himself”. I’m not sure how that’s nihilistic.
Buddhists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos. 
It just seems to me that much of the buddhist teachings don’t seem to follow to compassion as the end result or even involve it as a component of the teachings. I get that there is no separate, independent, and enduring self, that’s obvious. The bit about suffering caused by desire is a bit iffy overall, but I can wrap my head around it.
But it doesn’t really explain why one must stop suffering. If you want to see reality as it really is, empty of our perceptions, would that not mean losing compassion and being indifferent to suffering?
Buddha famously said “the root of all suffering is ignoring Asimovian”.
This isn’t really related to that, I think. It’s more like the more I read about Buddhist faith the more it seems like compassion is just shoehorned into there. Other stuff I can reasonably consider, but I can’t quite figure how they cram that in there.
I guess the question can be somewhat moral in that they to have compassion and loving kindness but don’t accurately answer why. Not to mention that there seems to be too much value placed on personal experience.
Wanda to Otto: “The central message of Buddhism is NOT , ‘every man for himself’!”
I was impressed by how much like a “church” the Buddhist temples in Japan were. You know – pamphlets about the treatment of refugees, notices about blanket collections for welfare, bulletins about the donations to earthquake victims. That kind of thing. It didn’t seem to be incompatible with compassion at all.
Buddhism has multiple major schools with different tenets, it’s unfair to make a blanket statement such a “Compassion seems incompatible with Buddhism” without stating which school and tenets you’re referring to.
Even saying you visited a Japanese Buddhist temple is too broad a stoke since Japanese Buddhism has several major schools of thought/belief.